CSNbbs
TULANE GAME THREAD - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Members (/forum-401.html)
+----- Forum: The Gregory A. Ruehlmann Sr. Memorial Cincinnati Board (/forum-404.html)
+----- Thread: TULANE GAME THREAD (/thread-939276.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


RE: TULANE GAME THREAD - CliftonAve - 01-02-2022 10:07 AM

I am born from a different era. I yell at the TV and say “Take the ball to the effing hole!” constantly. Somebody will point to some sort of analytic, but 2 is better than 0.


RE: TULANE GAME THREAD - bearcatfan - 01-02-2022 11:12 AM

There was a possession in the second half where 3 of UC's guys were standing near the corner about a foot from each other for a few seconds while the two guards dribbled beyond the 3 point line and then one of them heaved up a 3 point attempt with those other three guys still standing idle near the corner a foot from each other.


RE: TULANE GAME THREAD - bearcatmark - 01-02-2022 11:33 AM

(01-02-2022 10:07 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I am born from a different era. I yell at the TV and say “Take the ball to the effing hole!” constantly. Somebody will point to some sort of analytic, but 2 is better than 0.

Alright. I'll bite. I know people view me as stats reliant, but I like to cite them as they are expressions of what is happening on the floor. Sadly, I don't have the stats on a couple things I'd like to bring up so I'm going to be shooting in the dark based on observation in those areas.

If my two options are get to the rim and get a layup or shoot a 3 I am taking the layup option every time. Sadly, that is not how basketball works in reality.

Part of the reason for this team's regression is teams have realized the extent of how terrible this team is shooting the basketball. They wall off the lane against us and it's not hat hard to do when you're not afraid of shots. Early in the year this team did a good job getting to the rim, particularly early in the shot clock. They were good at being aggressive off the dribble and putting pressure on their man. Teams are not letting them do it anymore.

Tulane is a good example. Tulane plays a 2-3 zone, but it's typically a 2-3 zone that is really aggressive with it's pressure on the perimeter. For a zone team they force a bunch of turnovers. But last night, their defense wasn't extended at all. They packed the lane, gave up looks and trusted UC would miss.

And here is where roster flaws come in...because not only do the Bearcats lack shooting to an unbelievable degree, like I've really never seen before from a team at this level, they don't have wings that can break you down and create for others with any regularity, and they don't have post up bigs that can beat their many and score over them (Lahkin has shown it in flashes but looks terrible at times too...i think he is going to be pretty damn good in a year or 2...he isn't there now). So the choices aren't actually, get to the rim and take 2 points or take an open 3 with your bad shooters.

So here's where the stats come in. UC doesn't actually take a ton of 3s. They are 166th nationally in 3 point attempts per fg attempt. That's squarely in the middle group of teams in the country. Now you might say, yea but when you're that bad at it you should be far below...but they aren't just bad 3 point shooters they are bad shooters. So the alternative shots to those 3s aren't high efficiency 2s, they are far more likely to be low efficiency 2 point jumpers or post ups from bad post players.

Here;s where I wish I had better stats for you. UC is around a 50% shooting team from 2 but that includes layups and dunks. So including layups and dunks they are right around 1 point per possession from 2. They're shooting 29% from three. That's .87 points per possession, which is abysmal. But they'd need to shoot 43.5% on two point jumpers to equal that...does anyone think these guys could shoot that on 2 point jumpers? They'd need to shoot 43.5% on post ups to equal that. Nearly every NBA team is below 50% on post ups. They aren't typically efficient plays. I'd be stunned if we're even at 40% on post ups and 2 point jump shots as a team (I wish I had those numbers, they are out there somewhere, if anyone can find them let me know).

That doesn't mean there isn't a place for post ups and there isn't a place for 2 point jumpers. We take a lot of 2 point jumpers, we don't post up much because we dont have good post players or passing guards and teams wall off the lane making post entry hard. Our problem is teams know we can't shoot. They give up shots from 3 and from 2. They crowd the lane knowing we aren't scoring unless we get layups. I'd guess our most efficient scoring plays are in this order:

1. Free throws (yea think about that)
2. Layups
3. 3 point shots
4. Post ups
5. 2 point jumpers.

The problem is, we can't get 1 and 2 when teams aren't at all afraid of 3-5 and we don't have any Cumberland/SK type guys to break down the defense, nor post up guys to dominate the lane. When you look at it this way our shot distribution makes a ton of sense and being middle of the pack in 3 point attempts makes a ton of sense.


RE: TULANE GAME THREAD - levydl - 01-02-2022 12:17 PM

(01-02-2022 11:33 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  
(01-02-2022 10:07 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I am born from a different era. I yell at the TV and say “Take the ball to the effing hole!” constantly. Somebody will point to some sort of analytic, but 2 is better than 0.

Alright. I'll bite. I know people view me as stats reliant, but I like to cite them as they are expressions of what is happening on the floor. Sadly, I don't have the stats on a couple things I'd like to bring up so I'm going to be shooting in the dark based on observation in those areas.

If my two options are get to the rim and get a layup or shoot a 3 I am taking the layup option every time. Sadly, that is not how basketball works in reality.

Part of the reason for this team's regression is teams have realized the extent of how terrible this team is shooting the basketball. They wall off the lane against us and it's not hat hard to do when you're not afraid of shots. Early in the year this team did a good job getting to the rim, particularly early in the shot clock. They were good at being aggressive off the dribble and putting pressure on their man. Teams are not letting them do it anymore.

Tulane is a good example. Tulane plays a 2-3 zone, but it's typically a 2-3 zone that is really aggressive with it's pressure on the perimeter. For a zone team they force a bunch of turnovers. But last night, their defense wasn't extended at all. They packed the lane, gave up looks and trusted UC would miss.

And here is where roster flaws come in...because not only do the Bearcats lack shooting to an unbelievable degree, like I've really never seen before from a team at this level, they don't have wings that can break you down and create for others with any regularity, and they don't have post up bigs that can beat their many and score over them (Lahkin has shown it in flashes but looks terrible at times too...i think he is going to be pretty damn good in a year or 2...he isn't there now). So the choices aren't actually, get to the rim and take 2 points or take an open 3 with your bad shooters.

So here's where the stats come in. UC doesn't actually take a ton of 3s. They are 166th nationally in 3 point attempts per fg attempt. That's squarely in the middle group of teams in the country. Now you might say, yea but when you're that bad at it you should be far below...but they aren't just bad 3 point shooters they are bad shooters. So the alternative shots to those 3s aren't high efficiency 2s, they are far more likely to be low efficiency 2 point jumpers or post ups from bad post players.

Here;s where I wish I had better stats for you. UC is around a 50% shooting team from 2 but that includes layups and dunks. So including layups and dunks they are right around 1 point per possession from 2. They're shooting 29% from three. That's .87 points per possession, which is abysmal. But they'd need to shoot 43.5% on two point jumpers to equal that...does anyone think these guys could shoot that on 2 point jumpers? They'd need to shoot 43.5% on post ups to equal that. Nearly every NBA team is below 50% on post ups. They aren't typically efficient plays. I'd be stunned if we're even at 40% on post ups and 2 point jump shots as a team (I wish I had those numbers, they are out there somewhere, if anyone can find them let me know).

That doesn't mean there isn't a place for post ups and there isn't a place for 2 point jumpers. We take a lot of 2 point jumpers, we don't post up much because we dont have good post players or passing guards and teams wall off the lane making post entry hard. Our problem is teams know we can't shoot. They give up shots from 3 and from 2. They crowd the lane knowing we aren't scoring unless we get layups. I'd guess our most efficient scoring plays are in this order:

1. Free throws (yea think about that)
2. Layups
3. 3 point shots
4. Post ups
5. 2 point jumpers.

The problem is, we can't get 1 and 2 when teams aren't at all afraid of 3-5 and we don't have any Cumberland/SK type guys to break down the defense, nor post up guys to dominate the lane. When you look at it this way our shot distribution makes a ton of sense and being middle of the pack in 3 point attempts makes a ton of sense.

We also run almost no sets to generate a particular look. Even our out of bounds plays last night, they put a guy way in the backcourt and when their little 4-on-5 play shockingly didn't work, they heaved it to the dude 70 feet from the basket. If you're guys can't shoot and have trouble breaking people down, you'd think you would implement some strategy to get easy looks, but that doesn't seem to be happening.


RE: TULANE GAME THREAD - UCBearcatlawjd2 - 01-02-2022 12:45 PM

(01-02-2022 12:17 PM)levydl Wrote:  
(01-02-2022 11:33 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  
(01-02-2022 10:07 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I am born from a different era. I yell at the TV and say “Take the ball to the effing hole!” constantly. Somebody will point to some sort of analytic, but 2 is better than 0.

Alright. I'll bite. I know people view me as stats reliant, but I like to cite them as they are expressions of what is happening on the floor. Sadly, I don't have the stats on a couple things I'd like to bring up so I'm going to be shooting in the dark based on observation in those areas.

If my two options are get to the rim and get a layup or shoot a 3 I am taking the layup option every time. Sadly, that is not how basketball works in reality.

Part of the reason for this team's regression is teams have realized the extent of how terrible this team is shooting the basketball. They wall off the lane against us and it's not hat hard to do when you're not afraid of shots. Early in the year this team did a good job getting to the rim, particularly early in the shot clock. They were good at being aggressive off the dribble and putting pressure on their man. Teams are not letting them do it anymore.

Tulane is a good example. Tulane plays a 2-3 zone, but it's typically a 2-3 zone that is really aggressive with it's pressure on the perimeter. For a zone team they force a bunch of turnovers. But last night, their defense wasn't extended at all. They packed the lane, gave up looks and trusted UC would miss.

And here is where roster flaws come in...because not only do the Bearcats lack shooting to an unbelievable degree, like I've really never seen before from a team at this level, they don't have wings that can break you down and create for others with any regularity, and they don't have post up bigs that can beat their many and score over them (Lahkin has shown it in flashes but looks terrible at times too...i think he is going to be pretty damn good in a year or 2...he isn't there now). So the choices aren't actually, get to the rim and take 2 points or take an open 3 with your bad shooters.

So here's where the stats come in. UC doesn't actually take a ton of 3s. They are 166th nationally in 3 point attempts per fg attempt. That's squarely in the middle group of teams in the country. Now you might say, yea but when you're that bad at it you should be far below...but they aren't just bad 3 point shooters they are bad shooters. So the alternative shots to those 3s aren't high efficiency 2s, they are far more likely to be low efficiency 2 point jumpers or post ups from bad post players.

Here;s where I wish I had better stats for you. UC is around a 50% shooting team from 2 but that includes layups and dunks. So including layups and dunks they are right around 1 point per possession from 2. They're shooting 29% from three. That's .87 points per possession, which is abysmal. But they'd need to shoot 43.5% on two point jumpers to equal that...does anyone think these guys could shoot that on 2 point jumpers? They'd need to shoot 43.5% on post ups to equal that. Nearly every NBA team is below 50% on post ups. They aren't typically efficient plays. I'd be stunned if we're even at 40% on post ups and 2 point jump shots as a team (I wish I had those numbers, they are out there somewhere, if anyone can find them let me know).

That doesn't mean there isn't a place for post ups and there isn't a place for 2 point jumpers. We take a lot of 2 point jumpers, we don't post up much because we dont have good post players or passing guards and teams wall off the lane making post entry hard. Our problem is teams know we can't shoot. They give up shots from 3 and from 2. They crowd the lane knowing we aren't scoring unless we get layups. I'd guess our most efficient scoring plays are in this order:

1. Free throws (yea think about that)
2. Layups
3. 3 point shots
4. Post ups
5. 2 point jumpers.

The problem is, we can't get 1 and 2 when teams aren't at all afraid of 3-5 and we don't have any Cumberland/SK type guys to break down the defense, nor post up guys to dominate the lane. When you look at it this way our shot distribution makes a ton of sense and being middle of the pack in 3 point attempts makes a ton of sense.

We also run almost no sets to generate a particular look. Even our out of bounds plays last night, they put a guy way in the backcourt and when their little 4-on-5 play shockingly didn't work, they heaved it to the dude 70 feet from the basket. If you're guys can't shoot and have trouble breaking people down, you'd think you would implement some strategy to get easy looks, but that doesn't seem to be happening.

That is my problem with this staff. I don’t know what offense strategy is to get guys good looks. Please tell me what the offense is, I’m lost trying to figure it out.


RE: TULANE GAME THREAD - bearcatmark - 01-02-2022 01:35 PM

(01-02-2022 12:45 PM)UCBearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  That is my problem with this staff. I don’t know what offense strategy is to get guys good looks. Please tell me what the offense is, I’m lost trying to figure it out.

We ran an incredible amount of sets last season...had 2 guys that were efficient post scorers and basically had the same offensive efficiency numbers. It's really really hard to score when you can't make a jump shot.

This team is elite at protecting the ball (16th in turnover percentage) and a great in offensive rebounding rate (we rebound 34% of our misses good for 47th nationally). That's half the 4 offensive factors that we're great/elite at. The offense still stinks. When you can't shoot, don't have creators and don't have post scorers, it's really hard to score even when you do other things well.


RE: TULANE GAME THREAD - bearcatfan - 01-02-2022 04:19 PM

(01-02-2022 12:45 PM)UCBearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  That is my problem with this staff. I don’t know what offense strategy is to get guys good looks. Please tell me what the offense is, I’m lost trying to figure it out.

I wondered what the offense was the whole time Brannen was here, and its as if nothing has changed.


RE: TULANE GAME THREAD - bearcatmark - 01-02-2022 04:25 PM

(01-02-2022 04:19 PM)bearcatfan Wrote:  
(01-02-2022 12:45 PM)UCBearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  That is my problem with this staff. I don’t know what offense strategy is to get guys good looks. Please tell me what the offense is, I’m lost trying to figure it out.

I wondered what the offense was the whole time Brannen was here, and its as if nothing has changed.

Brannen ran a lot of motion. A lot of passing the ball quickly, moving it around. This team runs more iso/penetration offense. Brannen's offense probably created a few more layups in the half court, though it came at the cost of a lot more turnovers and not often being in great offensive rebounding position. This version of Wes's offense gets bogged down a lot when teams don't let them get in transition. They just don't have post scorers or creators off the dribble (particular in tight areas when the defense is collapsed, which they all are because we can't shoot). We do a great job valuing the basketball (which is clearly a focus of the offense) and hitting the offensive glass (another focus), but our inability to stretch the defense at all really limits us.

It was easy to see what Brannen was trying to do and pretty clear what Wes is trying to do on offense. It just looks really bad when nobody can hit a shot, your post guys don't score back to the basket and you don't have great creators. The players on the court matter.


RE: TULANE GAME THREAD - skyblade - 01-02-2022 05:13 PM

(01-02-2022 04:25 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  
(01-02-2022 04:19 PM)bearcatfan Wrote:  
(01-02-2022 12:45 PM)UCBearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  That is my problem with this staff. I don’t know what offense strategy is to get guys good looks. Please tell me what the offense is, I’m lost trying to figure it out.

I wondered what the offense was the whole time Brannen was here, and its as if nothing has changed.

Brannen ran a lot of motion. A lot of passing the ball quickly, moving it around. This team runs more iso/penetration offense. Brannen's offense probably created a few more layups in the half court, though it came at the cost of a lot more turnovers and not often being in great offensive rebounding position. This version of Wes's offense gets bogged down a lot when teams don't let them get in transition. They just don't have post scorers or creators off the dribble (particular in tight areas when the defense is collapsed, which they all are because we can't shoot). We do a great job valuing the basketball (which is clearly a focus of the offense) and hitting the offensive glass (another focus), but our inability to stretch the defense at all really limits us.

It was easy to see what Brannen was trying to do and pretty clear what Wes is trying to do on offense. It just looks really bad when nobody can hit a shot, your post guys don't score back to the basket and you don't have great creators. The players on the court matter.

With our current players I'm not sure any system would work. You need to be able to hit threes in todays game. Teams simple don't respect our three point shooting (for good reason) and clog the paint. It makes it hard for anything to happen, whether that be iso or motion offense. It was a pretty obvious problem even pre-season, but some of the guys we thought could help stretch the floor (Mason and McGinnis) aren't, while the other guys are just as bad (or worse) at shooting threes as their historical averages suggested.

DDJ for example could be a good ball heavy iso guard if he was a threat to drive and kick. Though I think Wes would prefer a bigger guard who could get it into the big men easier (he seems to want to play inside out). The problem is, teams know he has no one to kick to for an open three who can knock it down, so they clog the paint and force him to his other option... Step back jumpers that are analytics wise one of the worst shots in the game (though when he's on he can make them).

Our bigs struggle to get anything going in a clogged paint, it's made even worse when there are two of them in there. I'd like to see Lakhin play more center with Davenport at the 4 and see if we can get him some room. But again, we have only one true shooting threat on the team (Davenport), so no matter what line-up we run out there, teams can just clog the paint. DDJ can't catch-and-shoot, MAW/Newman/Saunders don't scare anyone with their shooting.

There probably isn't a solution, other than play better D and try to score off misses.

Ideally we'd have a big guard running the iso, think back to Cronin, he generally a big guard/forward who ran the offense (Cumberland, Evans, Kilpatrick). It allows them to see over the defense for passes and take advantage of mismatches. If Mason can get healthy and play better defense he could be that guy. But that seems like wishful thinking.

At this point we are waiting for Reed/Skillings and hoping one (or both) of them can be the floor general we need. This years team isn't going to be good, but hopefully we can be better than we looked last night.


RE: TULANE GAME THREAD - rath v2.0 - 01-02-2022 05:22 PM

We suffer from a touch of same guy syndrome.

Lot of the guys who were largely meh last year are being counted upon to not be meh this year and the results shouldn’t shock anyone.

I’m ready for a goodly sized roster turnover again.


RE: TULANE GAME THREAD - bearcatmark - 01-02-2022 05:27 PM

(01-02-2022 05:22 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  We suffer from a touch of same guy syndrome.

Lot of the guys who were largely meh last year are being counted upon to not be meh this year and the results shouldn’t shock anyone.

I’m ready for a goodly sized roster turnover again.

They're just as bad offensively as last year, and I think "same guy syndrome" is the right explanation. But at least they play damn hard on defense and we're SIGNIFICANTLY improved on that end. Bottom line is this team doesn't have the guys to do much on offense.

If they could shoot even low 30s from three they'd be much better positioned.


RE: TULANE GAME THREAD - OKIcat - 01-03-2022 08:36 AM

(01-01-2022 11:46 PM)doss2 Wrote:  
(01-01-2022 10:27 PM)levydl Wrote:  
(01-01-2022 08:35 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Ddj's shot baffles me. It looks smooth. But other than s couple games he just throws up brick after brick. Teams give him wide open looks because they ain't scared.

When he is in his little three dribble step back rhythm move he can look OK, but he has a little flinch in his shot most of the time. It's not pretty. Since he's been here, he's averaged fewer than 1 made three a game despite taking over 4 of them per. And we moved him off the ball LOL. He does a lot of good things but he is just a terrible shooter and he has been since he walked in the door.

I remember Huggs telling some guys "They are leaving you open because they want you to shoot!"

Bolded, that's legendary now and still funny and it may be one that Terry Nelson told on himself. But I turned to a friend I took to the game as we witnessed that first half debacle and paraphrased another Huggins statement; something to the effect of, "the next guy who shoots a three before we get a player in the lane to touch the ball is coming out to sit on the bench."

I still have confidence that Miller will be fine. Every player on the floor has a big hole in some aspect of his game and unfortunately most can't seem to shoot. There is a reason they were available for transfer including DDJ the prior year. Tulane shot like a national champion the first half and I was surprised that Miller couldn't slow those runs by forcing our guys to run some offense and get the ball inside more. But when I see the way our interior guys shoot, maybe it wouldn't have made a difference. Lahkin in particular seems to have regressed offensively from the touch he showed in November.

We were richly rewarded on the football field this year. We're now in our third year of learning deferred gratification on the basketball court. A blue chip shooter or rebounder should see opportunity to start immediately. Let's hope Wes gets one or two to begin turning this around.


RE: TULANE GAME THREAD - Helicopter - 01-03-2022 10:51 AM

Not all 3s and 2s are created equal. This team suffers from poor shot selection. Our worst shooters shoot in volumes. Our PGs settle for long 2s and off the dribble 3s when no one is in good rebounding position.

We are a bad shooting team that takes bad shots. That's a terrible equation.


RE: TULANE GAME THREAD - OKIcat - 01-03-2022 12:47 PM

(01-03-2022 10:51 AM)Helicopter Wrote:  Not all 3s and 2s are created equal. This team suffers from poor shot selection. Our worst shooters shoot in volumes. Our PGs settle for long 2s and off the dribble 3s when no one is in good rebounding position.

We are a bad shooting team that takes bad shots. That's a terrible equation.


Bolded, that says it pretty elegantly in a few words.
04-cheers


RE: TULANE GAME THREAD - BigDawg - 01-03-2022 01:01 PM

The offense is getting really good looks and most of the 3s are wide open. Have to make them, just have to. That will loosen up the defense, which right now packs the lane and teams can dig down hard when we go into the post as they are fine with a kick out and a 3, which we usually miss. Earlier in the year you could see some nice plays run and we'd get good looks and drives, but now the lack of shooting is making it really tough to run anything. Just like in youth basketball when kids can't make deep shots, teams just pack in the zone and force them to shoot it from deep.


RE: TULANE GAME THREAD - bearcatmark - 01-05-2022 12:01 PM

I remember thinking watching Tulane, "damn Cook and Forbes can make some tough shots" and thinking Cross is a hell of a player. Also Coleman can shoot it too.

Cook is shooting 48% from 3.
Forbes is shooting 37% on 70 attempts.
Coleman is shooting 55%.

Then I saw this morning how bad Tulane's shot selection has been and now I'm even more blown away by their shooters.




RE: TULANE GAME THREAD - OKIcat - 01-06-2022 08:45 AM

Yep, I'm still a bit shell shocked by Tulane swishing so many shots in that first half while the Bearcats struggled to score. It got me to thinking last night about past UC teams. Hypothetically, what if you could insert Jarron Cumberland into this current roster? Does he just get his 20 points per game and the record remains the same or does this entire team take a giant leap forward by adding a great college player who could score in any number of ways?

We'll never know. But it does beg the question if a blue chip frosh or transfer could be the catalyst for success with the players returning next year? Or are we just facing the prospects of a total rebuild needed to return to being a top 25 team?


RE: TULANE GAME THREAD - UCBearcatlawjd2 - 01-06-2022 08:52 AM

(01-06-2022 08:45 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  Yep, I'm still a bit shell shocked by Tulane swishing so many shots in that first half while the Bearcats struggled to score. It got me to thinking last night about past UC teams. Hypothetically, what if you could insert Jarron Cumberland into this current roster? Does he just get his 20 points per game and the record remains the same or does this entire team take a giant leap forward by adding a great college player who could score in any number of ways?

We'll never know. But it does beg the question if a blue chip frosh or transfer could be the catalyst for success with the players returning next year? Or are we just facing the prospects of a total rebuild needed to return to being a top 25 team?

Easily a top 25 team. We basically saw this with SK’s senior year and to a lesser extent Mick’s last year and Brannen first year here.

You put a stud with a bunch of role players and you get an NCAA tournament team. Two or more stud players are needed to be legit contender.


RE: TULANE GAME THREAD - Lush - 01-06-2022 10:11 AM

(01-06-2022 08:45 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  Yep, I'm still a bit shell shocked by Tulane swishing so many shots in that first half while the Bearcats struggled to score. It got me to thinking last night about past UC teams. Hypothetically, what if you could insert Jarron Cumberland into this current roster? Does he just get his 20 points per game and the record remains the same or does this entire team take a giant leap forward by adding a great college player who could score in any number of ways?

We'll never know. But it does beg the question if a blue chip frosh or transfer could be the catalyst for success with the players returning next year? Or are we just facing the prospects of a total rebuild needed to return to being a top 25 team?

what if we had keith williams?


RE: TULANE GAME THREAD - Lush - 01-06-2022 10:12 AM

we should probably stop bumping this game up to the top